The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Are anti-biotech campaigners the leftwing version of climate change deniers? The science media are finally confronting the distortions perpetrated by anti-GM advocacy groups and illiberal “progressive” journalists and bloggers. Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, reports.

The fallout continues to escalate over the questionable maize study by Gilles-Eric Seralini released almost two weeks ago. It’s already being referred to as The Seralini Affair or Seralini Tumor-Gate.

The notorious French molecular biologist known for his history of anti-biotechnology activism and scientifically disputed research claimed that rats fed a high dose lifetime diet of ’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer Roundup suffered tumors and multiple organ damage.

The study sparked an immediate furor among independent scientists, including those who support the labeling of GM foods but found Seralini’s research sloppy and poorly documented. Scientists have often responded forcefully after the release of poorly constructed studies. What’s unusual this time is that science journalists, who traditionally have given activist scientists and NGOs a free pass when they circulated questionable science about GM crops and food, are up in arms as well.

Geneticists and the general science community were first out of the block with their criticism, pointing out more than a dozen problems with the study. The London-based Science Media Centre, which assists reporters when major science news breaks, posted an entire page of criticisms, most notably its poor design, the use of tumor prone rodents, the small sample size and the selective presentation of data. MIT’s Knight Science Journalism Tracker documented a slew of problems.

Seralini’s research is anomalous. Previous peer-reviewed rat feeding studies using the same products (NK603 and Roundup) have not found any negative food safety impacts. The Japanese Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology released a 52-week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, finding “no apparent adverse effect in rats.” Earlier this year, a team of scientists at the University of Nottingham School of Biosciences released a review of 12 long-term studies (up to two years) and 12 multi-generational studies (up to 5 generations) of GM foods, concluding there is no evidence of health hazards.

The latest and most surprising pushback is the outrage coming from journalists at responsible news organizations who generally have been loathe to criticize reporters from “progressive” NGOs and suspect activist media sites (e.g. Mother Jones, Grist and ninety percent of the contributors at Huffington Post)—perhaps because they are aligned ideologically on many other issues.

The most dramatic break came in a comprehensive deconstruction of the research fiasco by Keith Kloor at Slate magazine headlined, “GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left.” As Kloor noted, although Seralini’s research was immediately and almost universally panned by serious scientists, the anti-biotech NGO-media complex went into over-drive upon its release, promoting it as game-changing research that raised fundamental questions about the safety of GM crops and food. Here’s the process, as Kloor described it:

“… [F]earsare stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs,” Kloor wrote. “In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.”

The unheard of restrictions meant that initial reports on the study—including at such places at Reuters—gave Seralini’s highly questionable findings an uncritical free pass. As a consequence, as the researcher Scicurious pointed out in a blog at Discover’sThe Crux, the initial reporting gave legitimacy to questionable conclusions, playing into the anti-GMO narrative, rather than putting the study in full context or calling attention to the concerns expressed by mainstream researchers about the validity of the results.

Within minutes of the release of the study—well before mainstream scientists had even had a chance to review it and offer a more balanced perspective—what appeared to be a coordinated response narrative by anti-GM groups surfaced in the US and Europe. The always-balanced Andrew Revkin, who writes The New York Times’ Dot Earth blog, noted how anti-GMO groups immediately started promoting Seralini’s study in an attempt to influence the upcoming vote in California over whether mandatory labeling should be required of GM foods.